Consensus interpretation in imaging research: Is there a better way?

Radiology

Volumn 257, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 14-17

  Bankier, Alexander A ^a   Levine, Deborah ^a   Halpern, Elkan F ^a   Kressel, Herbert Y ^a  

^a Radiology Editorial Office   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONSENSUS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EDITORIAL; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; REFERENCE VALUE; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; TRAINING; VALIDITY;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CONSENSUS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77957349542     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100252     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Moderate versus mediocre: the reliability of spine MR data interpretations. Radiology 2009;250(1):15-17.
2. Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, et al. Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 2009;250(1):161-170.
3. Mower WR. Evaluating bias and variability in diagnostic test reports. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33(1):85-91.
4. Turner DA. Observer variability: what to do until perfect diagnostic tests are invented. J Nucl Med 1978;19(4):435-437.
5. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274(8):645-651.
6. Beam CA, Baker ME, Paine SS, Sostman HD, Sullivan DC. Answering unanswered questions: proposal for a shared resource in clinical diagnostic radiology research. Radiology 1992;183(3):619-620.
7. Obuchowski NA, Zepp RC. Simple steps for improving multiple-reader studies in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166(3):517-521.
8. Evidence-Based Radiology Working Group. Evidence-based radiology: a new approach to the practice of radiology. Radiology 2001;220(3):566-575.
9. Rothwell PM. Analysis of agreement between measurements of continuous variables: general principles and lessons from studies of imaging of carotid stenosis. J Neurol 2000;247(11):825-834.
10. Hillman BJ. ACRIN-lessons learned in conducting multi-center trials of imaging and cancer. Cancer Imaging 2005;5(Spec No A):S97-S101.
11. Hillman BJ, Gatsonis CA. When is the right time to conduct a clinical trial of a diagnostic imaging technology? Radiology 2008;248(1):12-15.
12. Obuchowski NA. How many observers are needed in clinical studies of medical imaging? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182(4):867-869.
13. McGinn T, Wyer PC, Newman TB, et al. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic). CMAJ 2004;171(11):1369-1373. [Pub lished correction appears in CMAJ 2005;173(1):18.]
14. Kundel HL, Polansky M. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 2003; 228(2):303-308.
15. Bartlett JW, Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31(4):466-475.
16. Levine D, Bankier AA, Halpern EF. Submissions to Radiology: our top 10 list of statistical errors. Radiology 2009;253(2):288-290.
17. Shiraishi J, Pesce LL, Metz CE, Doi K. Experimental design and data analysis in receiver operating characteristic studies: lessons learned from reports in radiology from 1997 to 2006. Radiology 2009;253(3):822-830.